Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria. METHODS: LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared. RESULTS: The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture. CONCLUSION: The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

Acute performance of stylet driven leads for left bundle branch area pacing: A comparison with lumenless leads.

Background: Lumenless leads (LLLs) are widely used for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Recently, stylet-driven leads (SDLs) have also been used for LBBAP. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of SDLs during LBBAP in comparison with LLLs. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy indications at 2 high-volume, early conduction system pacing adopters, tertiary centers were included from January 2019 to July 2023. Patients received either SDLs or LLLs at the discretion of the implanting physician. Acute performance and follow-up data of both lead types were evaluated. Results: A total of 925 LBBAP implants were included, 655 using LLLs and 270 using SDLs. Overall, LBBAP acute success was significantly higher with LLLs than SDLs (95.3% vs 85.1%, respectively; P <.001) even after the learning curve (97% vs 86%; P = .013). LLLs were implanted in more mid-basal septal positions in comparison with SDLs, which tended to be implanted in more inferior and mid-apical septal positions. Acute lead-related complications were higher with SDLs than LLLs (15.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P <.001) with 15 cases of lead damage during implant (4.4% vs 0.5%; P <.001) but decreased with acquired experience and were comparable in the last 100 patients included in each group. Lead implant and fluoroscopy times were shorter for SDLs, with lead dislodgment occurring in 0.9% with LLLs and 1.5% with SDLs (P = .489). Conclusion: Acute lead performance proved to be different between LLLs and SDLs. A specific learning curve should be considered for SDLs even for implanters with extensive previous experience with LLLs.

Prótesis unicompartimental de rodilla. Resultados clínico-radiográficos y análisis de la supervivencia del implante / Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical-radiographic results and analysis of implant survival

Objetivo: Evaluar los resultados clínicos y radiográficos en pacientes sometidos a artroplastia unicompartimental de rodilla, así como la tasa de complicaciones y la supervivencia del implante. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo de 68 pacientes consecutivos (70 rodillas) sometidos a artroplastia unicompartimental de rodilla entre 2013 y 2020, con un seguimiento medio de 57.7 meses (rango 24-105) y una media de la edad de 61 años (rango 34-79). El 46,5% eran hombres. El índice de masa corporal medio era de 29,9 (rango 20-39). El diagnóstico más frecuente fue la artrosis del compartimento femorotibial medial con un varo <7°. Los resultados se evaluaron con la escala analógica visual para dolor y el Knee Society Score (KSS). Se evaluó la incidencia de complicaciones y la tasa de supervivencia del implante. Resultados: La disminución media en la escala analógica visual para dolor fue de 4,4 ± 1,9. Las puntuaciones medias posoperatorias en las escalas funcional y clínica del KSS fueron de 77,4 ± 13,7 y 70,2 ± 17,7, respectivamente. La tasa de complicaciones posquirúrgicas fue del 7% (5 casos). La tasa de reintervención quirúrgica fue del 15,5% (11 pacientes): nueve casos por persistencia del dolor, uno por rigidez articular y otro por aflojamiento aséptico. Conclusiones: La artroplastia unicompartimental de rodilla es una opción terapéutica eficaz para pacientes con gonartrosis unicompartimental de rodilla; se logran buenos resultados clínicos con una aceptable tasa de complicaciones; sin embargo, la tasa de revisión del implante es considerable. Nivel de Evidencia: IV

Objective: To assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), as well as the complication rate and implant survival. Materials and Methods: We present a retrospective descriptive study of 68 consecutive patients (70 knees) who underwent UKA between 2013 and 2020, with an average follow-up of 57.7 mon-ths (range 24-105) and an average age of 61 years (range 34-79). 46.5% of the patients were male. The average BMI was 29.9 (range 20-39). The most frequent etiology was osteoarthritis of the medial femorotibial compartment with a varus <7°. To assess the outcomes, the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the Knee Society Score (KSS) were used. The complication and implant survival rates were evaluated. Results: The average decrease in the VAS pain scale was 4.4±1.9. The average score on the postoperative KSS functional and clinical scales were 77.4±13.7 and 70.2±17.7, respectively. The postoperative complication rate was 7% (5 cases). The surgical reoperation rate was 15.5% (11 patients): nine cases for persistent pain, one case for joint stiffness, and one case for aseptic loosening. Conclusions: UKA is an effective therapeutic option for patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, providing good clinical results with an acceptable rate of complications; however, it provides a considerable implant revision rate. Level of Evidence: IV

Impact of Circulatory Assistance in the Early Evolution After Heart Transplantation. Unicentric Experience.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation (HT) is the reference treatment for patients with terminal heart failure. In recent years there has been a progressive increase in HT procedures in patients who have a circulatory support (CS). METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study of 293 consecutive patients who underwent HT from 2009 to 2018, analyzing the evolution of the 2 cohorts: patients with and without CS as a bridge to HT. Baseline and evolutionary clinical data collected following the usual follow-up protocol were recorded, including clinical events observed during the follow-up 1 year after the procedure. RESULTS: The subgroup of patients transplanted with CS showed a higher incidence of primary graft failure, frequent infection, and mortality. A tendency toward lower cardiac allograft vasculopathy was observed in this subgroup. Mechanical ventilation added to the CS resulted in a higher incidence of primary graft failure, infection, and renal dysfunction. The CS variable as a bridge to HT was shown to be predictive of 1-year mortality in both univariate (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.3; P = .038) and multivariate (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.3; P = .047) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, CS as a bridge to HT results in a higher incidence of primary graft failure, frequent infection, and mortality at 1-year follow-up. Mechanical ventilation added to CS has a clear unfavorable prognostic impact. CS as a bridge to HT was shown to be predictive of 1-year mortality in both univariate and multivariate analyses.